Mainstream Media Still Getting LENR Story Wrong

The mainstream media is still either ignoring or worse getting one of the most stories around today Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) or cold fusion wrong. The so-called science and technology reporters have ignored such recent developments as NIWeek where Francesco Celani was publicly demonstrating an LENR device, Andrea Rossi’s announcements, Defkalion’s announcements, the fact that an LENR device has been up and running at MIT for over six months, NASA’s announcement that it is working on LENR and Brillouin’s ability to raise venture capital.

Martin Fleischmann in retirement

The only story to make the mainstream press on LENR has been Martin Fleischmann’s death on August 3. Surprisingly most of the media was very respectful of the late Mr. Fleischmann. Some outlets such as Fortune Magazine and the Deseret News in Utah even mentioned current developments in LENR in stories on Fleischmann’s death.

Yet the inevitable hatchet job from a so called “science reporter” has now appeared. The Los Angeles Times published a sort of obituary by a staffer named Thomas H. Maugh II on August 13. From the story it’s obvious that Mr. Maugh hasn’t been following recent development in cold fusion. He claims that nobody has been able to duplicate Pons and Fleischmann’s success since 1989. That’s not true of course it has been duplicated hundreds of times.

The story tries to discredit Fleischmann and LENR by claiming that he was responsible for the media circus surrounding cold fusion back in 1989. We know from revelations by Fleischmann himself that he was apprehensive about using the term cold fusion and holding a press conference. He was talked into it by others.

Perhaps worst of all Maugh ignores Fleischmann’s many accomplishments such as serving as President of the International Society of Electrochemists from 1970 to 1972, being a member of the Royal Society (Britain’s most distinguished group of scientists) and winning the Palladium Medal from the US Electromechanical Society. Instead the story portrays Fleischmann as a crank he was not. The idea behind this piece is not to report the news but to discredit Flieschmann and LENR it is propaganda not journalism.

It also claims that their research has been “dismissed by the scientific community.” I suppose Peter Hagelstein, Robert Duncan, Michael McKubre Sergio Focardi, Guiseppe Levi, Brian Josephson, Francesco Cellani, Joseph L. Zawodny, Dennis Bushnell, George Miley and many others are not part of the scientific community. It’ll certainly be news to them.

Perhaps Mr. Maugh ought to spend some time doing a little thing called research. Unfortunately he won’t, like most self-proclaimed reporters he’ll sit around and wait until somebody shows him the news. From this article it’s easy to see why newspapers like the LA Times are losing so much circulation. They’re incapable of reporting the news. To make matters worse some of their writers such as Mr. Maugh are not above insulting the dead if it advances their personal agendas.

Martin Fleischmann deserves better and so do all the people out there who are serious about LENR. Judging from this story I wonder what will take to get the mainstream media to wake up to this story, probably LENR work by a company that buys a lot of advertising. That will get them to start “believing” in it because it might affect their paychecks.

 

Related search:

  • uppaimappla blog

4 Responses to Mainstream Media Still Getting LENR Story Wrong

  • uppaimappla says:

    Why just mainstream media? Even Wikipedia is getting it wrong. They are somehow refusing to publish information on the latest developments. This is serious because a search on LENR first hits wikipedia site. People read it and come to the conclusion that nothing worthwhile is happening.

    Maybe it is a good thing for contrarian investors who should be looking to start investing in energy consuming countries and companies instead of energy producing ones.

    • jennifer says:

      I agree with you. Contrarian investors should be investing in energy using countries like the USA and Australia. Not the producers they’re finished.

  • David says:

    Having been a student of Martin Fleischmann in Southampton – he supervised my final year undergraduate project – I knew there had to be something in the “cold fusion” announcement of 1989 and have been following it ever since. He was a true scientist, eager to discover something new and to understand what was going on. I am sure he saw the discovery of excess heat, from an idea that had been developing for some considerable time, primarily as interesting science. Its being a threat to the very fabric of hot fusion research programmes, the global energy industry and many related businesses worldwide, would have been secondary considerations. That it could be seen as a conflict between “physicists” and “chemists” seems almost too childish to believe, but it was there.

    Anyone who knew him could never think of him either as a crank or a charlatan. The fact that Hamish Johnston of the Institute of Physics (of which I used to be a Fellow) could write “… Like the hundreds of others worldwide, my little experiment found no evidence for cold fusion. With the exception of a few diehard enthusiasts, interest in cold fusion has since withered. Indeed, for physicists of my generation, the cold-fusion saga was a public embarrassment and an example of “bad science” – so much so that even legitimate investigations into its possibility are still viewed by many with scorn. …” demonstrates a similar lack of research to that done (or not) by the Mr Maugh mentioned in the article.

    Men of small stature, in comparison with Martin Fleischmann, but with vested interests, ensured this phenomenon was pushed towards a path of oblivion. I am glad he was able to see the vindication of his efforts by so many others before he died. As he said himself, a wasted opportunity.

    • jennifer says:

      Just remember that the men of small stature will be shown up for what they are in the long run. They simply make themselves look bad and do their field a disservice. It’s sad to see such a man treated so shabbily for simply having an open mind and daring to ask questions. A century from now Martin Fleischmann will be remembered as a great man and a true scientific pioneer. The men of small stature will be long forgotten.